Top

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Published in:

26-01-2024 | Original Article: General Research

Estimation of Cochlear Frequency Selectivity Using a Convolution Model of Forward-Masked Compound Action Potentials

Authors: François Deloche, Satyabrata Parida, Andrew Sivaprakasam, Michael G. Heinz

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Purpose

Frequency selectivity is a fundamental property of the peripheral auditory system; however, the invasiveness of auditory nerve (AN) experiments limits its study in the human ear. Compound action potentials (CAPs) associated with forward masking have been suggested as an alternative to assess cochlear frequency selectivity. Previous methods relied on an empirical comparison of AN and CAP tuning curves in animal models, arguably not taking full advantage of the information contained in forward-masked CAP waveforms.

Methods

To improve the estimation of cochlear frequency selectivity based on the CAP, we introduce a convolution model to fit forward-masked CAP waveforms. The model generates masking patterns that, when convolved with a unitary response, can predict the masking of the CAP waveform induced by Gaussian noise maskers. Model parameters, including those characterizing frequency selectivity, are fine-tuned by minimizing waveform prediction errors across numerous masking conditions, yielding robust estimates.

Results

The method was applied to click-evoked CAPs at the round window of anesthetized chinchillas using notched-noise maskers with various notch widths and attenuations. The estimated quality factor Q10 as a function of center frequency is shown to closely match the average quality factor obtained from AN fiber tuning curves, without the need for an empirical correction factor.

Conclusion

This study establishes a moderately invasive method for estimating cochlear frequency selectivity with potential applicability to other animal species or humans. Beyond the estimation of frequency selectivity, the proposed model proved to be remarkably accurate in fitting forward-masked CAP responses and could be extended to study more complex aspects of cochlear signal processing (e.g., compressive nonlinearities).

Available only for authorised users

Shera CA, Guinan JJ, Oxenham AJ (2002) Revised estimates of human cochlear tuning from otoacoustic and behavioral measurements. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(5):3318–3323. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.032675099ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oxenham AJ, Shera CA (2003) Estimates of human cochlear tuning at low levels using forward and simultaneous masking. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol JARO 4(4):541–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-002-3058-yCrossRefPubMed

Sumner CJ, Wells TT, Bergevin C et al (2018) Mammalian behavior and physiology converge to confirm sharper cochlear tuning in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(44):11322–11326. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810766115

Verschooten E, Desloovere C, Joris PX (2018) High-resolution frequency tuning but not temporal coding in the human cochlea. PLoS Biol 16(10):e2005164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005164

Heinz MG, Colburn HS, Carney LH (2002) Quantifying the implications of nonlinear cochlear tuning for auditory-filter estimates. J Acoust Soc Am 111(2):996–1011. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1436071ADSCrossRefPubMed

Eustaquio-Martín A, Lopez-Poveda EA (2011) Isoresponse versus isoinput estimates of cochlear filter tuning. JARO - J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 12(3):281–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-010-0252-1CrossRefPubMed

Ruggero MA, Temchin AN (2005) Unexceptional sharpness of frequency tuning in the human cochlea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(51):18614–18619. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509323102

Shera CA, Charaziak KK (2019) Cochlear frequency tuning and otoacoustic emissions. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a033498

Wilson US, Browning-Kamins J, Durante AS et al (2021) Cochlear tuning estimates from level ratio functions of distortion product otoacoustic emissions. Int J Audiol 10(1080/14992027):1886352

10.

Eggermont JJ (2017) Ups and downs in 75 years of electrocochleography. Front Syst Neurosci 11:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2017.00002MathSciNetCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Verschooten E, Joris PX (2022) Measurement of human cochlear and auditory nerve potentials. In: Groves AK (ed) Developmental, physiological, and functional neurobiology of the inner ear. Neuromethods, vol 176. Humana, New York, NY, p 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2022-9_14

12.

Patterson RD (1976) Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 59(3):640–654. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.380914ADSCrossRefPubMed

13.

Moore BC, Glasberg BR (1983) Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. J Acoust Soc Am 74(3):750–753. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.389861ADSCrossRefPubMed

14.

Delgutte B (1990) Physiological mechanisms of psychophysical masking: observations from auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 87(2):791–809. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.398891ADSCrossRefPubMed

15.

Harrison RV, Aran J, Erre J (1981) AP tuning curves from normal and pathological human and guinea pig cochleas. J Acoust Soc Am 69(5):1374–1385. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.385819ADSCrossRefPubMed

16.

Charaziak KK, Siegel JH (2014) Estimating cochlear frequency selectivity with stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions in Chinchillas. JARO - J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15(6):883–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-014-0487-3CrossRefPubMed

17.

Harrison RV, Aran JM, Negrevergne M (1981) The frequency selectivity of the normal and pathological human cochlea. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 230(3):221–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00456322CrossRefPubMed

18.

Verschooten E, Robles L, Kovačić D et al (2012) Auditory nerve frequency tuning measured with forward-masked compound action potentials. JARO - J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13(6):799–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-012-0346-zCrossRefPubMed

19.

Goldstein MH, Kiang NY (1958) Synchrony of neural activity in electric responses evoked by transient acoustic stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 30(2):107–114. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1909497ADSCrossRef

20.

de Boer E (1975) Synthetic whole-nerve action potentials for the cat. J Acoust Soc Am 58(5):1030–1045. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.380762ADSCrossRefPubMed

21.

Eggermont JJ (1976) Analysis of compound action potential responses to tone bursts in the human and guinea pig cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 60(5):1132–1139. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.381214ADSCrossRefPubMed

22.

Prijs VF, Eggermont JJ (1981) Narrow-band analysis of compound action potentials for several stimulus conditions in the guinea pig. Hear Res 4(1):23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(81)90034-4CrossRefPubMed

23.

Guinan JJ, Peake WT (1967) Middle-ear characteristics of anesthetized cats. J Acoust Soc Am 41(5):1237–1261. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1910465ADSCrossRefPubMed

24.

Abbas PJ, Gorga MP (1981) AP responses in forward-masking paradigms and relationship to responses of auditory-nerve fibers. J Acoust Soc Am 69(2):492–499. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.385477ADSCrossRefPubMed

25.

Temchin AN, Rich NC, Ruggero MA (2008) Threshold tuning curves of chinchilla auditory-nerve fibers. I. Dependence on characteristic frequency and relation to the magnitudes of cochlear vibrations. J Neurophysiol 100(5):2889–2898. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90637.2008

26.

Deloche F (2022) fdeloche/fmaskedCAP-model: v1.0. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6403024, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6403023

27.

Paszke A, Gross S, Massa F et al (2019) PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In: Wallach H, Larochelle H, Beygelzimer A, et al (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32. Curran Associates, Inc., p 8024–8035

28.

Wang B (1979) The relation between the compound action potential and unit discharges of the auditory nerve. PhD thesis, MIT

29.

Versnel H, Schoonhoven R, Prijs VF (1992) Single-fibre and whole-nerve responses to clicks as a function of sound intensity in the guinea pig. Hear Res 59(2):138–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(92)90111-YCrossRefPubMed

30.

Özdamar Ö, Dallos P (1978) Synchronous responses of the primary auditory fibers to the onset of tone burst and their relation to compound action potentials. Brain Res 155(1):169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(78)90320-7CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kiang NYS, Watanabe T, Thomas EC et al (1965) Discharge patterns of single fibers in the cat’s auditory nerve, vol 35. MIT press Cambridge, MA

32.

Ruggero MA (1992) Physiology and coding of sound in the auditory nerve. Neurophysiology, The mammalian auditory pathway, pp 34–93

33.

McMahon CM, Patuzzi RB (2002) The origin of the 900 Hz spectral peak in spontaneous and sound-evoked round-window electrical activity. Hear Res 173(1–2):134–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5955(02)00281-2CrossRefPubMed

34.

Chertoff ME, Earl BR, Diaz FJ et al (2012) Analysis of the cochlear microphonic to a low-frequency tone embedded in filtered noise. J Acoust Soc Am 132(5):3351–3362. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4757746ADSCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Parida S, Heinz MG (2022) Distorted tonotopy severely degrades neural representations of connected speech in noise following acoustic trauma. J Neurosci 42(8):1477–1490. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1268-21.2021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Temchin AN, Rich NC, Ruggero MA (2008) Threshold tuning curves of chinchilla auditory nerve fibers. II. Dependence on spontaneous activity and relation to cochlear nonlinearity. J Neurophysiol 100(5):2899–2906. https://doi.org/10.1152/JN.90639.2008

37.

Unoki M, Irino T, Glasberg B et al (2006) Comparison of the roex and gammachirp filters as representations of the auditory filter. J Acoust Soc Am 120(3):1474–1492. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2228539ADSCrossRefPubMed

38.

Bruce IC, Erfani Y, Zilany MS (2018) A phenomenological model of the synapse between the inner hair cell and auditory nerve: implications of limited neurotransmitter release sites. Hear Res 360:40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.016CrossRefPubMed

39.

Irino T, Patterson RD (2002) A time-domain, level-dependent auditory filter: the gammachirp. J Acoust Soc Am 101(1):412–419. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.417975ADSCrossRef

40.

Lopez-Poveda EA, Meddis R (2001) A human nonlinear cochlear filterbank. J Acoust Soc Am 110(6):3107–3118. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1416197ADSCrossRefPubMed

41.

Simpson MJ, Jennings SG, Margolis RH (2020) Techniques for obtaining high-quality recordings in electrocochleography. Front Syst Neurosci 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2020.00018

42.

Goodman SS, Lichtenhan JT, Jennings SG (2023) Minimum detectable differences in electrocochleography measurements: Bayesian-based predictions. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 24(2):217–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-023-00888-0CrossRefPubMed

43.

Møller AR, Jannetta PJ (1981) Compound action potentials recorded intracranially from the auditory nerve in man. Exp Neurol 74(3):862–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-4886(81)90259-4CrossRefPubMed

44.

Møller AR, Jho HD (1989) Response from the exposed intracranial human auditory nerve to low-frequency tones: basic characteristics. Hear Res 38(1–2):163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(89)90137-8CrossRefPubMed

45.

Huet A, Batrel C, Dubernard X et al (2022) Peristimulus time responses predict adaptation and spontaneous firing of auditory-nerve fibers: from rodents data to humans. J Neurosci 42(11):2253–2267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Alamri Y, Jennings SG (2023) Computational modeling of the human compound action potential. J Acoust Soc Am 153(4):2376. https://doi.org/10.1121/10.0017863ADSCrossRefPubMed

47.

Elberling C, Hoke M (1978) Brief communication: decoding of human compound action potentials. Scand Audiol 7(3):171–175. https://doi.org/10.3109/01050397809076284CrossRefPubMed

48.

Bappert E, Hoke M, Lütkenhöner B (1980) Deconvolution of compound action potentials and nonlinear features of the PST histogram. Hear Res 2(3–4):573–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(80)90095-7CrossRefPubMed

49.

Kiang NYS, Moxon EC, Kahn AR (1976) The relationship of gross potentials recorded from the cochlea to single unit activity in the auditory nerve. In: Electrocochleography. University Park Press Baltimore, p 95–115

50.

Prijs VF (1986) Single-unit response at the round window of the guinea pig. Hear Res 21(2):127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5955(86)90034-1ADSCrossRefPubMed

Title: Estimation of Cochlear Frequency Selectivity Using a Convolution Model of Forward-Masked Compound Action Potentials
Authors: François Deloche
Satyabrata Parida
Andrew Sivaprakasam
Michael G. Heinz
Publication date: 26-01-2024
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-023-00922-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Estimation of Cochlear Frequency Selectivity Using a Convolution Model of Forward-Masked Compound Action Potentials

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Insights Into Electrophysiological Metrics of Cochlear Health in Cochlear Implant Users Using a Computational Model

An Implantable Piezofilm Middle Ear Microphone: Performance in Human Cadaveric Temporal Bones

Editorial: Views on JARO 2023

A Systematic Review on the Genetic Contribution to Tinnitus

Correction: An Implantable Piezofilm Middle Ear Microphone: Performance in Human Cadaveric Temporal Bones

Auditory Cortical Plasticity in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness Before and After Cochlear Implantation